linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 1/2] rcu: Do prepare and cleanup idle depending on in

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20180620155658.GU3593@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Wed, 20 Jun 2018 08:56:58 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>, jiangshanlai@...il.com,
        josh@...htriplett.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@....com,
        joel@...lfernandes.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/2] rcu: Do prepare and cleanup idle depending on in_nmi()

On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 11:43:35AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 07:50:58 -0700
> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 05:47:19PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > > Get rid of dependency on ->dynticks_nmi_nesting.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
> > > ---
> > >  kernel/rcu/tree.c | 22 ++++++++++------------
> > >  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > index deb2508..59ae94e 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > @@ -797,6 +797,11 @@ void rcu_nmi_exit(void)
> > >  		return;
> > >  	}
> > > 
> > > +	if (!in_nmi()) {  
> > 
> > Is in_nmi() sufficiently reliable for use here?  In the past, there have
> > been tracepoints that invoked these functions between the time that the
> > handlers were entered and the time that software updated the state so that
> > the various handler-check functions (such as in_nmi()) would return true.
> > 
> > Steve, has there been any change in this situation?
> 
> There shouldn't be any "trace events", but what we had to deal with was
> function tracing. And in the near future, we will be getting "function
> based events" that will allow you to create an event in any function.
> 
> That said, even the function tracer shouldn't be called from the time
> the NMI triggers to "in_nmi()" is set. Because there's some function
> tracer callbacks that should not be executed from an NMI, and I use
> in_nmi() to determine if they get called or not.

OK, so in theory this change is safe from a tracing perspective.  But
it does add conditionals to a fastpath.

Byungchul, is there any reason to make this change other than preparation
for your second patch?

							Thanx, Paul